Talk:Germanic peoples

Modern Germanic People

Afrikaners should be deleted because they are the only diaspora group included. If we include them we would also have to include Ulster Scots, Anglo Americans, Anglo Australians, Anglo New Zealanders, Anglo Canadians, Pennsylvania Dutch and Anglo South Africans and Transylvania Saxons. If those groups are covered under German, English and Lowland Scots, than Afrikaners are included under Dutch. Also since we are talking about ethnicity and not nationality, shouldn't Austrians and the Flemish count as Germans and Dutch, respectfully. If we count Austrians as an ethnic group distinct from Germans than German Speaking Swiss should be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD58:1310:3D7A:9D0E:D73:694A (talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

The article uses both BC/AD and BCE/CE conventions. AD seems to have a clear lead on CE, but BCE and BC are both used a lot. Being consistent would be nice; anyone have a preference? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• BCE/CE - more neutral. Those old Germans were not Christian, were they? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• BCE/CE. Neither the Germans nor the Romans were Christian. Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, think I got them all (except of course BC/AD as they're used in the titles of publications). --Usernameunique (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• BC/AD pertains to christian cultures, christianity and germanic peoples are intertwined. this isn't a jewish or atheist article Fustos (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not an issue I feel strongly about myself, but sometimes when I see explanations like this I wonder whether Wikipedia will eventually need to avoid all BC/AD just to stop the types of editing which BC/AD zealots do. You've seen that there was an old consensus agreement here, and normally that closes the discussion but you've gone and started changing the discussion. You seem to be arguing this is a special case because it is a "Christian subject"? But it seems you must be defining any subject as Christian as long as it has a historical "intertwining". It is hard to see how such a definition leaves many subjects at all which are not "Christian", including "jewish and atheist" subjects. The logic here is untenable surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

3 people is hardly concensus. BTW it doesn't matter since it's a BC/AD article. Also, don't want to use BC/AD? come up with a calendar that doesn't just appropriate gregorian dates. BCE/CE is just elitist cultural appropriation. And it has been historically, it's just that nowadays the excuse is that it's PC. Fustos (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

3 people (who bothered to write) is a relevant consensus of 100% in this case, and also note the other points I made. Your personal demands are not consistent with Wikipedia's long standing and practical policies on this subject. This is one subject where Wikipedia really does have rules in a simple sense, and the rules you seem to propose do not exist. See WP:ERA: "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change". OTOH Wikipedia rightfully has no definition of Christian, Atheist and Jewish subjects like the one you made up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Lowland Scots

I am surprised by how this article lists lowland scots as being germanic. While we speak germanic languages the culture and ethnicity beyond language is strictly celtic. It's a bit misleading to label us as germanic simply for having a germanic language.

It is an old problem on this article that people keep adding modern peoples who happen to speak a Germanic language, and then every now and then this section gets shortened again as it should. Basically this article should be about classical ethnic groups in my opinion, and I think the opinion of quite a few other editors over the years also. So please feel free to try and improve the article!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would edit it but the page is protected so I am unable to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tovur (talk • contribs) 12:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have posted at WP:RLN in order to get new feedback on this subject: [1]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

As Andrew has stated, there have been drive-by editors with little to no real anthropological or historical knowledge/credentials weighing in on this, often incorrectly so. My position accords that of Andrew, in that, this article should be focused on the ancient and medieval understanding of "Germanic" people for the sake of avoiding extremist and racialist ideologues.--Obenritter (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The modern Germanic ethnic groups seems to be sourced. I don't think discussion of Germanic peoples should be cut off after some arbitrary date, definitely not for fear of ideologues. Hrodvarsson (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing question is laid out on RLN. Otherwise, I am not sure what this refers to. What cut off? Which ideologues? Coming back to the sources on the article now, what I mentioned at RLN is that both sources are in general lists of modern ethnic groups, i.e. tertiary sources, which implies that there must be some sources that these sources used. But such sources have not been located? In fact the two sources seem to be using the Germanic terminology in the context of referring to the ancient peoples from who the modern peoples are thought to be descended? I honestly don't find many published arguments or research which conclude that there are modern Germanic peoples in any other way that this indirect way? I have tried.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Cut off meaning a date after which Germanic peoples are no longer discussed as existing. I don't know who the ideologues are, I did not bring them up. If peoples are descended from ancient Germanic peoples then they would be modern ethnic groups of the Germanic peoples. I don't see much of a problem here, though more sources on the topic would be helpful. Responding to the original post, Native Peoples of the World: An Encylopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues (Routledge, 2015) states "Lowlanders differ from Highlanders in their ethnic origin. While Highland Scots are of Celtic (Gaelic) origin, Lowland Scots are descended from people of Germanic stock." Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"If peoples are descended from ancient Germanic peoples then they would be modern ethnic groups of the Germanic peoples." Where is this definition from? Do you have a reliable source? Just logically, if this is a true definition then all (or at least most) people are part of all (or at least most) ancient ethnic groups, at least hypothetically, especially given that we have no pedigrees back to Roman times? Or is there a cut-off concerning the amount of DNA one has to have from one's ancestors? How much then? But anyway it would be strange to have a definition of a normal everyday word connected to a technical definition that is still being developed today. I figure this makes the whole world "Germanic peoples", so the word becomes a bit useless? To put my point another way: this definition has no source, and is not logical. There is a reason no-one can find strong secondary sources. There is a very distinct boundary in the dark ages between ancient and modern peoples, and so there is no problem to solve concerning a "cut off" between ancient and modern. Ancestry can not be traced back that far even thought we want to. Language and DNA maybe can imperfectly, but they do not define ethnicity either. On the other hand ancient texts about ancient tribes is a subject Wikipedia can handle quite well, if allowed. The only editing problem is people inserting modern Luxemburgers and Lowlands Scots and Afrikaners into an article about things thousands of years ago. Why are they doing it? The problem of an artificial cut off is what they need to explain, because they are the ones making artificial cut offs between modern people on the basis of ancient tribes, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment about the sources discussing these modern ethnic groups as being descended from the ancient Germanic peoples. It is a definitional point on "descended", which you emphasized. I do not know if the series of questions are rhetorical or not, but they do not seem to be related to the topic. The rest of your comment is based on a view that a modern people cannot claim descent from an ancient people. This would need a reliable source pertaining specifically to this case otherwise this is just forum talk about ethnogenesis. I still do not see a problem with stating the ancestry of the Lowland Scots (or other Germanic ethnic groups) is traced to the ancient Germanic peoples in the Germanic peoples article. What is your specific objection? Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"I still do not see a problem with stating the ancestry of the Lowland Scots (or other Germanic ethnic groups) is traced to the ancient Germanic peoples in the Germanic peoples article." What do you mean by "traced"? If you mean in ancestry terms, then we have no family trees that far back but all Europeans can be expected to descend to a significant extent from the Germanic peoples of Roman times, and none will descend purely from them. The Roman Germanic tribes moved around, mixed, contributed to new groups. The terms related to being Germanic in the sense of this article originally meant something very diverse and widespread and changing. It is not like saying that English people descend partly from Anglo Saxons, which actually means something that can be explained reasonably easily (partly because the Anglo Saxons have a late classical starting point we can say something about). Germanic as a word does not even mean the same thing in the different periods, and by trying to combine the modern and ancient meanings we distort the facts and explain badly. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean "traced" in the same way Jews and Samaritans trace their ancestry to the ancient Israelites. If you feel that the changing meaning of "Germanic" is important to the understanding of the article then I would suggest adding sources discussing it, but I do not think that is a reason to avoid mentioning modern Germanic ethnic groups. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let's not forget the missing link here which is sources for your claim. Apart from the quirky insertions, the article currently has a good notable subject which has good sources. But I have not seen any sources which say that Afrikaners, for example, feel or have any strong specific link "in the same way Jews and Samaritans" do, to the diverse tribes described by Caesar, Tacitus and the rest as "Germani", who most broadly defined lived from France to Estland and apparently spoke all kinds of languages. (Actually, from what I've seen, it is more trendy for people of northern and western European descent to think of themselves as descended from Celts, which is at least as historically meaningful, if not more. And the clearest cultural predecessor to their modern cultures is of course Graeco-Roman, also not Germanic. Their main traditional religion, that guided the upbringings of people for more than 1000 years is Middle Eastern.) To point to something obvious, the Jews and Samaritans are well-known to be extreme and special cases when it comes to feeling a special link to ancient peoples? I frankly do not think there are any high quality sources to show that Lowland Scots, for example, are like them with respect to ancient Germani. The modern term "Germanic" mainly refers to a language family. Normal people do not simply equate their language family to their nationality or culture, even though they realize that the history of languages is a thread within the complex web of history in each ethnic group. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not mentioned in the article that Afrikaners "feel" linked to the ancient Germanic peoples, just that they are a modern Germanic ethnic group. (They tend to have a distinct identity from the Dutch—and that link is only a few hundred years back—but this does not negate their Dutch ancestry.) I also did not mention anything about feelings, I just tried to clarify what I meant by "traced". Lowland Scots have less reason to identify with and trace their ancestry to ancient tribes than the Jews or Samaritans do for obvious reasons. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You still have not given any sources, and I still think it is not really possible. We currently have two generalist tertiary sources after years of discussion about this. The kinds of modern peoples who everyone wants to lump together here in this article about ancient tribes are Germans, Austrians, English, Scots, etc, to the exclusion of course of Poles, Finns, French etc. That is not something real specialist historians do in a simple way. We already have an article about modern Pan-Germanism and Germanic languages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources for what? The title of this section is "Lowland Scots" and the original post is about Lowland Scots not being Germanic. i provided a source about Lowland Scots being Germanic. The chain of subsequent discussion is ultimately about one sentence in the genetics section of the article, repeated in the lead. As I said, I do not see a problem with this (you could argue the list of ancient and modern groups should not be mentioned in the lead but this is beside the point), though more sources for the article in general would be beneficial. If real specialist historians view Poles, Finns and French people as Germanic then by all means add information on that to the article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The source you brought is like the 2 we already have? 1. It is tertiary, made up of short entries 2. It is non-specialist and containing a simple off-hand remark in a small entry 3. It does not call Lowland Scots members of a so-called modern Germanic ethnic group (like the Wikipedia article does, and should not) it just says they have "stock". Basic fact: Lowland Scots and Afrikaners do not see themselves as being part of the same ethnic group and if they did they would not call it the "Germanic people" or the Germani! Find a good secondary source which shows this fact not to be correct? If it is correct, then the paragraph we currently have is misleading. That's the problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not say the source is the same as the others. I specifically demarcated the original post from the rest of the discussion and stated the source I gave was in response to the original post. Who claimed Lowland Scots and Afrikaners "see themselves" as being part of the same group, and how would perception be relevant to this discussion? There is no section titled "Intra-ethnic perception" in this article. The one (!) sentence of discussion is in the genetics section. I still do not really see the point you are trying to make. What I am gathering is you think that since Afrikaners, Lowland Scots or [insert Germanic ethnic group] do not have a pan-German identity, this means modern Germanic ethnic groups do not exist (or should not be mentioned)? Apologies if this is a misrepresentation, as I say, I do not know what you are arguing exactly. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, then apparently the reason we seem to be talking past each other is that you do not realize there is a paragraph at the end of the present intro which over many years keeps getting removed or trimmed, and then growing again. Currently it says, "Modern Germanic ethnic groups include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, Faroe Islanders, Flemish, Frisians, Germans, Icelanders, Lowland Scots, Luxembourgers, Norwegians, and Swedes." I did not start this latest of many discussions about the concerns this raises because not on topic, poorly sourced, POV, and not notable. To me it seems clear this sentence makes a claim that goes far beyond saying that these people have "roots" and does in fact mean that modern Lowland Scots and Afrikaners must see themselves as being part of the same ethnic group called the "Germanic people" (rather than protestants, northern Europeans etc). Surely this is nonsense. (Being in an ethnic group is all about perception what you call yourself, and which other people you consider in or out of your group.) OTOH, it is hard to believe you've looked closely at the genetics section either because the same sentence, though not citing any geneticists, appears in the genetics section. Surely it is even more misleading there, because it is effectively implying that genetics is the same as what makes a person a part of an ethnic group.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledged that the sentence is also in the lead ("one sentence in the genetics section of the article, repeated in the lead"), and I read your first reply in this section in which you mentioned that people have added/removed groups. I do not think the current version infers that these groups "must see themselves" as having a pan-German identity. It also does not preclude these groups from having other identities (this is definitely true if you are going to add Protestant as a potential self-identification). Groups are ultimately made up of individuals who are not identical so you could say any identification above the level of the individual infers that the individual has no identity below that level. (Being in an ethnic group is not all about what you call yourself. Who you consider an in-group/out-group member may be decided by your perception—e.g. Afrikaners distinguishing themselves from the Dutch—but there is a limit to this otherwise you are outright denying the existence of ethnic groups. This is forum talk and largely unrelated to the topic.) The genetics section is the most appropriate section currently in the article for it, though as I've said multiple times the whole article would benefit from more sources. Regarding your last point, I would appreciate it if you gave me your definition of "ethnicity" or "ethnic group". Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The wording now is claiming the existence of a modern version of the ethnic group called the Germanic people, i.e. the subject of this article. It simply can not be read any other way. It is not for example saying (like the sources used say) that there are peoples today who descend from the Germanic peoples. You apparently admit that not only do books and articles not tell people about any such modern German nation, but also that the peoples named in the article do not generally say or believe that they are a part of this Germanic people. Saying that people can be in an ethnic group without even knowing it, because of DNA, is clearly nonsense, and also not sourced, and neither good genetics, nor good anything else. Even if it were true, then shouldn't at least someone significant believe in the existence of an ethnic group for it to exist? So who? I see no point getting into a discussion about your strange ideas about what ethnic groups are, because you are not defending your opinions in any convincing way to begin with, after many rounds of useless "forum talk". I don't see any reason to believe that this is some subtle point about how to define ethnicity. It is basic and obvious. Most importantly, you have no sources for any of these personal opinions, and so they are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I think you should stop posting unless you find sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It can be read as these groups are descended from those groups. It is "basic and obvious" that descendants of an ancient group constitute a modern group of the same people. Your definitions of "ethnicity" and "ethnic group" are relevant as otherwise I do not think we are talking on the same page. This discussion is becoming quite snide however and I really do not see a reason for it to be so. I think a simple rewording would allay your concerns about the meaning of the sentence and the structure of the article. How does "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include..." sound? Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

But in genetics this descent question (putting aside the very big question of whether it is even relevant) is still a complex question, not clear at all. As I said right at the beginning, modern Europeans probably all descend from the at least some of the various groups labelled as Germani, but none of them at all have exact proof of how. Even if we just accept myths about descent as relevant for ethnicity, these are also not homogeneous in Europe, with many people seeing themselves as descended from Celts, Romans, mixtures etc. In any case, whatever the article says, there should be suitable sources. Please focus on that question first. There is no point talking about details of the wording if none of it can be properly sourced. (The sources used so far are not good enough because they are (a) aside remarks (b) in short entries in non-specialist tertiary sources, (c) that can be interpreted in different way with respect to what people WANT them to say for this Wikipedia article.) FWIW I also think it is absolutely not normal or even logical for anyone, educated or not educated, to say that "descendants of an ancient group constitute a modern group of the same people" or to say that people can be in an ethnic group without knowing it. There are no normal definitions of those words which make those statements work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"modern Europeans probably all descend from the at least some of the various groups labelled as Germani". That should be included in the article if you can find a source. Saying things are hazy is an argument to add more information, same with your earlier comments about the meaning of "Germanic" having changed over time. Who said homogeneity is a requirement for stating one group is descended from another group? This is a pure strawman. You opened a discussion at RSN about the sources currently used, was there a consensus that they are not good enough and/or inadmissible? I do not see the problem with the comments I made. You have used "basic", "obvious", "logical", "normal" but have not made a specific response. To your last point, some people may identify as "black", "white", etc., unaware of their specific ancestry until it is revealed to them or they discover it. Are they not then a member of an ethnic group without knowing it? (This is not a rhetorical question.) Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No in fact we do not need to add any information we can source to any article. Each article should have a defined ground to cover. This is one problem with what you are pushing, but the other - just to remind - is that you have no sources. (As you know, the RSN question did not get much response, but the response it got was certainly not positive about what you are proposing either.) The logic you are using would mean that such information would have to be added to every article about any ethnic group far enough back in history. You mention I "have not made a specific response" To what question? In answer to your new question, no it is obvious that "black" or "white" (to use your terms) DNA/ancestry are not the same as "black" or "white" ethnic groups (whatever that would mean). If people find out that they have certain ancestry this not the same as finding out they were part of an ethnic group without knowing it. They might of course choose to see it that way. You are apparently thinking of cases where a persons starts to see themselves as part of an ethnic group, for example an American who gets interested in their Irish heritage. Whether or not such an American is ever really Irish, this is something they could also choose not to do, and therefore clearly an act of will and not based on DNA. You can't for example tell such an American that they are Irish even if they think they are not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Your approach implies also that people actually loose their current ethnicity when they learn about their ancestry. Again, this is nonsense. I have I think never heard of anyone "loosing" their ethnicity in this way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The statement that "modern Europeans probably all descend from the at least some of the various groups labelled as Germani" would be a notable piece of information for this article and should be included if you can find a source. (It is your opinion on what ground we should or should not cover that you base your comment on. Why use "in fact" when expressing your opinion?) The problem with what I am "pushing"? I have simply stated I do not have a problem with the sentence that is currently in the article remaining in the article. I also offered an alternative to the current sentence that I thought may address your concerns. The RSN discussion did not form a consensus, yes, so retaining is common practice in the event of no consensus. I do not see a problem with adding similar information to similar articles so I do not see how my logic is inconsistent. I said you did not give a specific response to the comments you countered with "basic", "obvious", etc. I have not seen loose used that way before, and why did you quote loosing afterwards? What is this in reference to? My approach also does not imply that. As I said above, people are capable of maintaining multiple identities at the same time. It is possible that some in Ireland no longer consider the people who emigrated to be Irish, or that the Irish American does not adopt an Irish identity, but neither would negate the Irish American's Irish ancestry. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry about the spelling mistake for "losing".
• It is just maths that all Europeans today must descend from all the Europeans with descendants alive, as long as you go back far enough in time, and so that would by definition include all the ethnic groups at that time including Germani. There are published estimates of how far back such times would be, but how would that be notable for this article, given that it applies to all populations and ethnic groups? My point was that the reality of European ancestry as understood by population geneticists makes a mockery of this fringe theory of yours that ethnicity is the same as ancestry (especially pre-medieval ancestry). (Allowing for the kind of simple mixtures you envision does not make it less fringe.)
• The subject of this article is what has been written about the Germani, which is a history subject where there is debate on almost every point. The genetics and ancestry of modern people do not help solve any of those debates at this time. The most clear thing is that there was a major mixing up of European identities and populations during and after the classical period.
• Modern folk mythology about modern Celtic or Germanic or pagan "roots" and "blood", such as the Nazis loved, is only that. It is not science, but 19th century romance. If there is a modern Germanic people, bring sources to prove it. If not, as we know is the case, we should delete. (In fact of course we know that normal Scots and Afrikaners do not see themselves as sharing a Germanic ethnicity, and also geneticists and historians are not telling them they should either.)
• There is no rule that things have to stay in an article if RSN did not give enough feedback. The rule is in fact that if there is no reliable sourcing for material that editors have doubts about, which is clearly the case here over several years, then material should be removed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You could push the timeline back a few billion years and say all life on earth is descended from single-celled organisms too, though that would not be very relevant to this discussion either. "Germanic peoples" is obviously a distinct and identifiable topic or this article would not exist in the first place. I did not say ethnicity simply equals ancestry by the way, and I removed the term "Germanic ethnic groups" in my proposed alternate sentence as it seemed an unnecessarily debatable point. I also have not commented on the specifics of the rest of the article so why are you discussing that? If there are issues with unrelated sections in the article, I would suggest creating a new section on this talk page to discuss them. I do not know how mythology or paganism are related to this discussion, or why you have brought those topics, or nazis, up. (As an aside, "basic", "obvious", "logical", "normal", "fringe", "nazi" is a nice, steady progression of insults.) WP:NOCON states "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". The RSN discussion regarded the reliability of the sources; there was no consensus that they were unreliable. Of course the article in general would benefit from more sources, as I have said multiple times, but there is no consensus to remove the ones currently used. As I said above, this discussion is becoming, or has already become, needlessly snide, and preferably it would not continue for another 3 weeks. If you are opposed to the term "Germanic ethnic groups" then my proposed alternate sentence addresses that, and there is a strong argument to be made that including the sentence in the lead is undue so it could be removed from there. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No you do not need to push back a billion years, LOL. The Germani, the subject of this article since it started, and the only one with appropriate sourcing, lived in classical times, and that is quite far enough to make everyone in Europe related. (As I said, this is something you can look up. The maths of populations is a published subject.) If you want to study my rhetoric you are also inaccurate, because the last thing I compared your modern Germanic race theory to was 19th century Romanticism. But ok, I'll be less "snide" (what a snide thing to call me, LOL). You are just wrong. Is that clear enough? You clearly have no sources and you are down to twisting Wikipedia policy. But you are just wrong about that to. Anything challenged and without sources can be removed. This issue has been challenged continually by this article's main editors for years, and not one of the race theorists such as yourself ever came up with a decent source. So it is really simple. I was just hoping you'd think about it more and come closer to a consensus.

Can I suggest a new practical stage in our discussion? I tend to think we are both wanting a compromise text in practice? (For practical reasons, we should be careful about a complete deletion, because a vacuum pulls in more nonsense. Even in the intro, it might be better to put in a sentence which sends readers to more appropriate articles.) So please can you spell out what you would like to do with the genetics section. (I presume you do not want to remove it?) As a guideline I would say that what can be sourced are publications about Germanic languages, and European DNA, both of which can be linked to discussion of modern and ancient groups. What we have failed to find is sources which agree with you that this means there is a modern Germanic ethnic group or groups, mixed or otherwise. By all means start a new talk page section if you would like.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Now you are using "LOL" multiple times in a discussion, is this how you usually talk? And I am "race theorist" too? That is good to know—another thing for my CV along with 'ignorant of basic facts', 'ignorant of obvious realities', 'illogical', 'unnormal', and 'nazi'. Anyway, to your points, if you have a source that states all modern Europeans descend from the Germani then please present it. 'Look it up yourself' is generally not an accepted attempt at sourcing. If you mean Europeans are all a mix of WHG, EEF and ANE, that is correct, but is, as I said, unrelated to this discussion. "Twisting Wikipedia policy" is also quite a claim, considering you are the one arguing that 'no consensus = proposal goes through'. I think you have a picture of who I am in your mind and are arguing against that rather than what is actually being said. Maybe there is a history of fringe nazi race theorists who have tried to create the Fourth Reich by fostering some sort of pan-German identity on Wikipedia but that is not what I am or what I have done (I have made exactly 0 edits to this article, by the way). If you look at my proposed sentence you will see "modern Germanic ethnic groups" is not in it so I do not know why you are fixated on this. As you said yourself, the sources state the listed groups are descended from the ancient Germanic peoples, thus the alternate sentence is sourced. What is your objection to the alternate sentence? Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop changing the subject to me please. Please explain your proposal afresh? Not only for the lead, but also the genetics section. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you can avoid making personal attacks and blurting out "LOL", I will not have to respond. My proposed alternate sentence is "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include...". Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop making personal accusations? My "attacks" are addressed at your arguments. The change you are suggesting for the lead seems an uncontroversial edit to me, although I would eventually like to go further. You have not mentioned what you suggest for the genetics section. Should it not be deleted? It is in any case extremely up to date and based on a tiny number of primary sources from the first Y DNA generation many years ago.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Bringing nazis into the discussion then describing someone as a "race theorist" is a personal attack, but we can agree to disagree. The genetics section would benefit from more sources and information, add an expand-section template? The subsequent section would also benefit if more information and sources were added. The template could be added to that too. I will implement the wording change if that is OK. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you deny that you believe in a "blood-based" theory of ethnicity? (I use the term blood, because it is not a mainstream technical DNA-mixture idea, because these have nothing to do with defining modern or ancient ethnicity, and it is not an idea based on folklore and perceived ancestry. It is something in between folklore and science.) It seems to me to be just a fact that this is a position you have defended here, and it is a position with a very infamous history, and no expert supporters at all. I think it is very hard not to remark upon this very notable fact, if we are talking about whether a position is a mainstream one that should be Wikipedia? (Wikipedia policy demands we look at things like this.) I am sure there are a lot of people who have a sort of "common sense" about ethnicity being "blood based", which leads to many misunderstandings, but that's not how we write Wikipedia. I think you still underestimate how different this is to how most geneticists and historians see ethnicity. ...But I see nothing wrong with any of the edits you are proposing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Blood" is a very loaded term and I do not know of anyone who uses such language except for neo-nazis chanting "blood and soil" while carrying tiki torches, so I would deny that, yes. (You could talk instead about genetic cluster analysis but I do not think that would be a relevant or productive discussion here.) For the specifics of this discussion, I was arguing mostly about the relationship between descendants and ancestors, but if something is not specifically stated in the source it should not be included as it opens the door for OR, I agree, hence I removed the term "modern Germanic ethnic groups" in the proposed sentence. I will make the discussed changes now. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is a very loaded term because it is a very loaded way of defining ethnicity. I am just being honest. You clearly are aware of the historical precedent, and OTOH I think we've agreed that it is not a theory that is easy to find in reliable sources. There is a reason for that. Basically your definition of a people is a folk definition of a race. Race is a tricky concept to begin with, but also not the same as belonging to a particular people. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

modern germanic peoples

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article say modern germanic peoples? Freeboy200 (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Too binary. The wording "ethnic groups descended from" is better. Batternut (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• lets just remove it altoghther Freeboy200 (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment.(Summoned by bot) It would be helpful if the disputed text were made clear, with quotes from sources, rather than just the abstract principle. I wonder if it is "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, Faroe Islanders, Flemish, Frisians, Germans, Icelanders, Lowland Scots, Luxembourgers, Norwegians, and Swedes.[3][4]". If so, I find some of this very problematic. The modern English (the only group I know well), are a madly-hybrid people speaking a madly-hybridised language, the most that could be said about us is that we have a substantial Germanic inheritance, ethnically and linguistically, but to say we are descended from any ancient people or group of peoples, is just wrong. Regarding sources, not only do there need to be good sources to support the point explicitly, but the balance of good sources need to support the assertion in order for it to be put in WP:VOICE. Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• No Having read the disputed text, that text is clearly wrong, I cannot speak for all the named groups, but the idea that the modern English are generally referred to as a 'modern Germanic people' is nonsense, one hardly needs to ask for a source to support it. I also/still have problems with the 'other' text. The wording "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, etc." is conflating a nationality with an ethnicity. The English (and I suspect, but do not know about, other mentioned groups), are a national, not an ethnic group. I don't know percentages, but the 'Germanic' input into England's 'gene pool', is obviously substantial as a result of conquests up to, and possibly partly including, 1066, but that is quite some way from claiming that the English are a unitary ethnic group which is descended from any source. Would this wording work: "Modern nations substantially descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, etc."? Pincrete (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - reliably referenced but the article needs to be expanded, as I have stated in the past, to include the history of Germanic peoples in the modern era. I am not convinced by the above arguments, whether the English in particular are embarassed about their ethnicity (their Germanic nature having been de-emphasised since WWI for political reasons, despite their linguistic and ethnic origin) or not does not mean that it should not be pointed out, as this is an objective classification. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems several of us think it is not reliably referenced, not only because the sources are of a very weak type for this subject, but also because they do not say what WP is citing them for. So can you explain why you think this is reliably referenced please? (Maybe below in the threaded discussion.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

their Germanic nature having been de-emphasised since WWI for political reasons, Errrr a substantial number of the modern English have no Germanic nature. 'Ethnicity' is an imprecise, and often subjective term, and whilst the WASP English may often be defined as a distinct ethnic group (who do have a substantial Germanic component to their 'make up'), 'the English' are simply not generally regarded as an ethnic group, any more than 'American' is an ethnicity. I don't know which other countries on the list this is true of. As phrased, the implication is that English=WASP, others are, in some sense, not English. Pincrete (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Better than "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples" which has several problems. Chief among them is that the claim of descent must be "more or less"/ Many English have, like Cheddar Man's modern descendant, non-Anglo-Saxon blood; some may well not be Anglo-Saxon at all. (The same applies, for various reasons, to everybody else on this list.) That being given, why exclude those groups (the Normans? the Lombards?) which have Germanic descent, but don't speak a Germanic language?

  We may want the links; if so, say something like "Modern ethnic groups speaking a Germanic language...." Even that has problems with North Americans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The group (Western Hunter-Gatherers) Cheddar man belonged to was replaced in the late neolithic period by an invasion of the Bell Beaker people. This is long before the time of the "Germanic peoples", and their invasion of the region, began. "Normans" and "Lombards" are not mentioned in the sources, so that is why they are not mentioned. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• No as previously mentioned, too binary Wolfson5 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• there are reliable source included and making them say things that arent there is against WP:WEASEL, modern germanic peoples exist just as modern slavic peoples or romance people Freeboy200 (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Post some of those sources here them. I for one have never heard anyone refer to romance people. In Europe people talk most often about southern europeans, northern europeans, eastern europeans. A bit less often they refer to religious alignments (catholic, protestant, orthodox + atheist isms). Romance and Germanic are words used in linguistics and history as far I experience them. This discussion on this article has literally been going years and we keep seeing people who feel otherwise, but can not find good sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm new here and don't particularly want to take a side, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_peoples should probably be considered together with this article. Sakuranohi (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to have a similar long-term confusion about what the article should be about, or maybe worse. Once again there are linguistic uses and historical uses which are both valid but quite distinct, and both covered in other articles. However the case is not exactly the same because Latin Americans are obviously a third factor in that particular set of terms for a set of modern peoples (but referring to peoples whose ancestry is only partly southern European). Short answer: not sure that we should hold up fixing one of these articles because of the other in this case. More to the point would be if one of them finds a great way of handling these issues, it might then help other articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The "ethnic groups descended from" claim appears well sourced, and is fairly fundamental to the article, so it should probably stay. Batternut (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why you think it is well sourced and fundamental to the article. These two claims are not self-evident. 1. They are sourced from short entries in relatively unknown tertiary sources which are clearly not by population geneticists or specialists in the history of the peoples involved. If specialists in these subjects believed the same thing they would have said it somewhere? 2. The article is not about "peoples descended from" and the notability of such speculations seems very low given that Europe as a whole, seen from a biological point of view, is one interbreeding population, and the Germanic population as defined classically was also very large and basically ended up all over Europe. (The French for example can claim to be descended from the Franks, and the Italians from Lombards.) Basically these are just amateur speculations based on things like where modern peoples live and what they call themselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Two published sources isn't bad, though as you say they seem to be non-specialist authors. Discussion of what may be termed modern Germanic groups is fundamental if this article is to cover existing ethnic groups. Most of the article is about the history of these peoples - unless we consign Germanic ethnic groups to the past or simply reduce it to Germanic language speakers, this perhaps more contentious issue must be covered. Current Germanic ethnic groups include groups that self-define as being Germanic. Batternut (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and why would we not say that "Germanic peoples" is a term used in good sources either for past peoples or modern linguistic groups (which has its own article)? That is indeed the question here. The two weak sources you mention do not even in any case tell us about any third use of the term, and it is not like people have not been trying to find a source for years for this and failing. (They do not claim that descendants of ancient Germanic tribes or speakers of modern Germanic languages are called Germanic peoples?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Not having either of these sources available to me I cannot verify what they say or imply about Germanic peoples; the main claim has been in the lead since about June 2013. Having had a brief look for further sources I understand the trouble finding them. I wonder if the last 100 years has generated a reticence to label nations as Germanic when the similar "Latin/Latino" label is more readily accepted (despite Hernán Cortés and co). Batternut (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you are making a speculative theory about why no one can find sources, but this theory is also not based on sources. You show no evidence that there was ever a past situation (100 years ago) that was different, but even if that was the case we still do not live 100 years ago. Well if we are allowed to speculate, maybe serious writers just never widely used the term this way, because they realized that Germanic languages and classical Germanic peoples were two things which went different ways, both spreading and changing, meaning that the idea of a "modern Germanic people" in the post colonial world is now ill-defined and only creating confusion? Maybe Wikipedia editors who know the subject LESS well keep misunderstanding this and assuming there must be such a term because there are terms like "Latino" which have their own different history? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The substantive point, theorizing aside, is what precisely the Minahan and Pavlovic sources say about Germanic peoples. If anyone has them to hand, quotations would at least settle the issue of their use or misuse. Batternut (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe I cited a URL for one of them previously, I think to google books?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Re "Disputed text": Freeboy200's edit's (here, subsequently reverted) that prompted this rfc changed "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples include ..." to "Modern Germanic peoples include ...". My interpretation of the wording was that "descended from" generally allows the possibility of other ancestor peoples, whereas the alternative was more exclusively Germanic. Thus the English could be descended from Germanic, Celtic, Basque and who knows who/what else ... Batternut (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you are technically correct about "descended from" generally allowing the possibility of other ancestor peoples, but the inference is that the 'Germanic' input is the exclusive, or at least the predominant component and I think it would be better quantified, even in a general way (substantially/largely?). As I say in my post above, I actually question whether the English are generally thought of as an ethnic group, as opposed to a national group. I don't know which other European peoples that would also be true of, many are possibly more ethnically homogenous than the English. Among my 'English' friends I count people whose descent is Scots, Welsh, Irish, eastern/middle European Jewish, Greek, Spanish, Italian, French Hugeonot - most of whom have been English for generations, and that's before we include all the C20th migrations from outside Europe? Are these people not English? Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"... substantially descended" would be an improvement; with the caveat that we must always be guided by the sources. Batternut (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Very much appears to be WP:OR and also guessing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is guessing, and the precise wording should reflect good sources, but you don't need many sources to know that 'English' is a nationality describing anyone born in England. There are Jewish English, Caribbean English, Indian, Pakistani and East African English in their millions as well as Polish, Slavic, and other recently European English, plus Scots and Welsh English (if the last trio ian't a contradiction?), Norman French English (who have I forgotten?). This may not be true of those groups on the list who are defined by ethnicity rather than nationality, but to a greater or lesser extent, this is obviously true of all 'nationality' groups, such as the Dutch. Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

At least there are people who would think of themselves as English or American in a way which goes beyond simple citizenship. But I don't recall hearing people referring to themselves as members of the Germanic people. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be a discussion more relevant to English national identity. In any case, why do you recognize some ethnic groups (Scottish, Welsh, etc.) but say that the English are not an ethnic group? Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Why am I recognising the Welsh/Scots etc as an ethnic group? There are Pakistani-Welshmen, Italian-Scots etc, but the English come from a particularly 'mixed' base and it is even less common to hear them referred to as an ethnic group .... it is almost as silly as referring to Americans as an ethnic group. Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Are there any "pure" ethnic or national groups? I think ethnic groups are not biological to begin with. They can literally be made, or come into existence by accident. They can be ancestry or language or state-related, sometimes, but it is not necessarily so. They exist when people see themselves that way, therefore if the people in the group see language as what defines them, then language does define them simply because that's how they see it. Therefore what is ridiculous is people on the internet trying to reason out whether there might be an ethnic group which the supposed members do not know they are part of, and who do not speak the same language, live in the same states, or share any other marker of common nationality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a tendency for English people to be humiliated by their ethnicity.

These specimens come in two categories (1) the old school anti-"Fritz", "ten German bombers" chauvinist crowd, which results from WWI and the attempt to distance England from any connection to "the Krauts" (2) bourgeois liberals, who in a post-empire world are embarassed about their past actions of their ethnic group, the tactic here is to try and blur the lines and pretend that the English are really Celts (they're not) and have been in these Isles forever (they haven't) or take the cosmopolitan citizen of the world approach (as seen above).

Still, the objections of some English does not detract from the fact that Germanic is an objective and useful taxonomical category for a major group of humans, just like Slavic, Arab, Turkic and so on, or that it has a modern signifiance. In particular, the article needs to be expanded to discuss the movement of Pan-Germanism. There is a clear difference in Belgium, for example, between the French-originated Walloons and the Germanic-originated Flemish. The relevance of modern Germanic peoples is arguably more relevant to the continent, but still needs to include all. The Germanic-Celtic distinction is essential for understanding the modern "British" Isles for example (19th century population movements, Anglicisation, devolution). Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And can you find a reliable source for these opinions, or examples of the terminology even being used this way in a good source? Please consider WP:OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of the wording, the line should be removed from the lead (the line about the migration period tribes could be removed as well). This rfc was started by a SPA (possibly a sockpuppet too due to their knowledge of Wikipedia policy despite no serious edits outside of this page, and repeated blanking of their talk page to become auto-confirmed). I doubt these types have even read the whole article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Claíomh Solais:, I would be very interested to hear how you go about asserting that particular groups are "Celtic", "Germanic", "Slavic" etc. "the English are really Celts (they're not)"; what is the basis in which you judge one group to be "Celtic" and another group not to be "Celtic"? Brough87 (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Surely that is exactly the problem many of us feel exists with this idea here that there is a modern "Germanic" people at all. No sources. If people don't call themselves Germanic, and "experts" don't either, why are we even implying it with these badly sourced comments about modern descendants?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: I happen to believe that the categorisation of certain arbitrary groups as intrinsically 'Celtic' and certain other groups as intrinsically 'Germanic' (etc etc), are rather spurious in nature and offer little encyclopedic value. For example, @Claíomh Solais: says the English 'are not really Celts', why? Because they're just not apparently; what kind of value does that offer exactly? Brough87 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, without having to find sources we can just give any opinion we like. There is one modern meanings of Germanic which have already covered in other ways: Germanic languages. But this is a whole family of languages which are not mutually intelligible anymore, and not any kind of normal ethnic group. The question of whether any modern peoples are descended from the ancient ones would not make them Germanic, and it is clearly a subject which can only sensibly be covered together with European population history as a whole (which we have an article for), because there are all types of ideas published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2018

The link at the start of the article should be changed from Proto-Indo-Europeans to Indo-European or the title should be changed to Proto-Indo-European as Proto-Indo-Europeans are not the same as Indo-Europeans Abote2 (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Modern ethnic groups" arbitrary selection of Irish, Scots and Manx?

Isn't this kinda arbitrary? Modern French are also descended from Germanic tribes, "at least partially". The LEDECITEs attached to these three in particular makes them really stand out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I trimmed the lead further, leaving the details in the article body. Batternut (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Which I suppose could also be called arbitrary? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

My selection of what to leave in the lead was approximately based upon population (from memory) and Afrikaners to show geographic spread, so perhaps still rather whimsical. Batternut (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I suppose if that part of the lead were written with sufficient generality, per MOS:LEADCITE (hey, lead, not lede, btw people), then the citations could possibly be removed. However, given the heat this stuff generates, I doubt it will ever go unchallenged. Batternut (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

We've arbitrarily defined these groups as Celtic; while simultaneously ignoring the Norse, Norman, Anglo-Saxon settlement of these areas/nations over the centuries. As I've said previously, if we're going to have these categorisations it doesn't seem to be a leap of faith to define these groups by the histories of their populations; and in the case of Ireland, Scotland and Man they have had significant Germanic populations and influences. If that can't be agreed then perhaps a discussion needs to be had on the encyclopedic value of these categorisations altogether and/or how we as a community define these groups in the first place. Brough87 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"Germanic" and "Celtic" are both linguistic terms first and foremost. When used to describe "ethnic" groups they are only really useful to describe the "original" speakers of languages within these particular subfamilies. Listing "proselyte" Germanic-speakers like everyone in Britain and Ireland who may or may not be primarily descended from Anglo-Saxons or Norsemen as "partly descended from Germanic peoples" is ridiculous as they are no more descended from such groups than the French, who we presumably don't list because their languages are primarily Italic ("France" was founded by the Franks, a Germanic-speaking people, and Normandy is named for a group of viking settlers). If what we are saying is that Irish, Scots and Manx are partly descended from "Germanic peoples" and also happen to primarily speak a Germanic language, then we need to say that, and if we are going to say that then it really needs (a) a source and (b) to be included in the article body first, and only then can a discussion take place as to whether it should be covered in the lead. My "arbitrariness" concern really has nothing to do with the supposed categorization of these particular groups as "Celtic", but your reading that in says a lot about what your motives here are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to act like you've uncovered a mass conspiracy; you know full well that I have little respect for these arbitrary categorisations. When it comes to you personally, and despite your claims to the contrary, your "arbitrariness concern" does have something to do with the "Celtic categorisation". If you're so opposed to the arbitrary mention of these groups as Germanic, why would you not have the same concern for the same groups that are arbitrarily declared to be "Celtic"? If you don't wish to explain your position on this matter, then surely at least we can agree that there needs to be consensus on how define groups as X and Y? Brough87 (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please focus on content, not contributors. I pointed out how the selection of the majority "ethnic" groups in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales was arbitrary when they are no more "Germanic" than the French. I did not say "Celtic" anywhere, and in fact if I did it wouldn't make sense since most French are Italic-speakers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You've raised a concern in a talk page and now you're wanting to avoid answering why you don't hold such qualms in other areas, I would say that's rather odd but anyway. You assert that the 'Irish, Manx, Scots are no more Germanic than the French', do you have evidence for this and an explanation as to how you're defining them thus? The French are defined as "Latin European people" and a "Romance people" on their page; if linguistics is the principle we go by to define said groups, the Irish, Scots and Manx are indeed Germanic; but again there is no agreed system of defining these groups as X or Y in the first place... Brough87 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no earthly idea what you are talking about at this point -- I "don't hold such qualms in other areas"? Where was that question posed to me and where did I "avoid answering" it? Our article French people, in its third sentence, identifies seven ancient/medieval groups from which the French claim descent, and three out of seven are "Germanic", so not listing them here but listing the groups that just happen to occupy Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales is ... well, back before I knew you were the one who added them a week ago, I thought it was arbitrary, but I don't think that anymore. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not arguing for the inclusion of "the French" in this list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Then I shall spell it out, you're worried about the supposed 'arbitrary nature' of the inclusion of Manx etc on this page, for reasons that seem to be rather incoherent. But you don't have such qualms with the same type of categorisation on other pages, why do you have this inconsistency. When we don't have community-agreed method for defining ethnic groups as X category or Y category, why do you take such issue here? I mentioned the French because they are defined as a "Latin European people" / "Romance people" on their page because they speak a Latin/Romance language; should we define groups based on how the French are defined on WP? Brough87 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I came here because of an RSN filing a few months back, and then a basically unrelated ANI filing a few days ago. I don't normally edit articles on ethnic groups (ancient history is another matter...), so expecting me to defend my supposed hypocrisy in not editing some other random articles is ... well, that actually is arbitrary. The ironic thing is that you're the second user to accuse me of this in the last month, the other being an Irish nationalist. Anyway, can we please discuss the content of this article now? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I wonder at what point you will actually answer some questions rather than trailing off on your political obsessions. The French page defines groups by language family, why do you take issue with doing the same here? Brough87 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OTHER.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Seen it, so if the 'French page model' doesn't suffice, how should we define and categorise such groups? Brough87 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Like I already said further up and in my edit summary when I removed them: find sources that actually describe the problem in detail, figure out how to summarize those sources in a neutral and accurate(ly nuanced) manner in the article body, and if you really, 'really want to then try to seek consensus to include some form of it in the lead section. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The whole point of Wikipedia is just summarizing what the best sources say. So your whole approach should be based on that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• This short line has caused an inordinate amount of disruption and unproductive discussion. I originally argued against removal as I did not think it was such a problem but I now support removing it altogether, at the very least until more sources can be presented. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

lets remove the line about "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples"

Should the the line "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples" be removed? Freeboy200 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Snow Close. RfC repeating previous, from an SPA that has done nothing but attack this page. Probably an experienced wikipedian, auto-confirmed in 9 minutes flat by "repeated blanking of their talk page" (observed above) just 8 weeks ago. Who are you, Freeboy200? Reveal yourself! Batternut (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove I fear this is an example of people trying to exploit Wiki for an agenda. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

... or this RfC might be for another agenda - that of drawing a veil over Germanic influence upon the modern world. Batternut (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The what influence of the what? You realize this sounds a bit strange? This is an article about tribal nations from history. There are other articles about other subjects. The only edits which are being discussed here, confusingly it has to be said, are clearly only about text concerning modern people linked to the ancient people, not the influence of the ancient people. Or are the Germanic tribes a kind of ever-present illuminati in your mind?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the controversy is here. Can the concerned parties provide pro and con reasoning? Sakuranohi (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is intended to cover the concerns discussed in most of the previous discussions on this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Given the ongoing debate and controversy about this single line in the Summary—which is in no way a substantial part of the article's body—my inclination is to delete the line altogether so we can dispense with this agonizing banter in the Talk section. Germanic peoples is a generic term for people who speak Germanic-derivative languages and who have a history in western Europe's general historical development. It would benefit more to omit/delete this sentence than it helps us since strife has been its only reward. BTW-somebody also inserted this controversial line near the end of the article...so whoever takes the axe to it, please remove it from the Summary and Body.--Obenritter (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obenritter: So the Irish are Germanic rather than Celtic because they mostly speak English? I don't think so! You could be right that the lead should not even mention this small part of the body, ie that it is WP:UNDUE. However, some cost-benefit evaluation of controversial content is no justification to WP:CENSOR it completely. Batternut (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: There's plenty to be discussed with reference to the Celts since they also traversed some of the same territory on the Iberian Peninsula that the Germanic Visigoths did and there was known contact with other Germanic tribes...so yes, they might be part Germanic as well. They were not entirely immune to contact with the Normans, Saxons, and/or Vikings as well, so any attempt at ethnographic exclusivity for the Celts is probably misplaced. Nonetheless, this is not about censorship in so much as it is about reducing dissension. Frankly, I could care less but my opinion was requested.--Obenritter (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obenritter: I was summoned by a bot. Who/how were you roped in? Batternut (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Support The line adds nothing to the le/ad/e. What is with the recent round of malformed RFCs filled with bludgeony and/or aspersion casting participants? This makes #7. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) would editors find it suitable to remove the sentence if it concerned: "Modern ethnic groups descended from ancient Bedouin people"? Or "ancient Inuit people"? (2) Would reference to scientific evidence concerning not only linguistic but DNA affinities (haplogroups) be of assistance here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yseult-Ivain (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Yseult-Ivain (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The first question is not relevant, and looks like a "trick argument". The history of one ancient people is not the same as another. The simple answer to the second question is yes, but the complicated answer is that this is totally missing the point. WP has various different articles about northern European population genetics etc, and indeed this article has a section about such things. No one is objecting to those, but they are a whole subject on their own, ongoing research without many clear results we can link to Germanic tribes, and not easy to summarize. The concern that has kept coming back in this article is to a specific passage in the lead of this article which presents itself as a simple relevant core fact, but which is not reliably sourced from the types of sources you mention at all. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrew, please don't worry about any "trick arguments" coming from me: people who understand brainstorming would know an invitation to do so when they see one, and few such would likely be "tricked" by much of anything.Yseult-Ivain (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)